I don't even know what to say.
I stopped reviewing on Goodreads because I morally disagreed with their actions toward reviewers. I've actually never had a bad interaction with an author. Goodreads hasn't ever deleted any of my reviews. I left because their behavior just didn't feel right.
Today I noticed this in my inbox:
This situation is frustrating, infuriating and ... just a bit funny because this is the review they want me to take down:
I actually wanted to write a really looong rant about that book. It pissed me off so much that I had pages of quotes and notes and opinions.
I had such a strong reaction to it because I read it not too long after the whole Goodreads Debacle. I was feeling a bit sensitive about reviewers rights and here comes a book that does the exact same thing that many a BBAuthor has done to reviewers who gave their book a low rating.
In this book a smart and interesting teenage girl who reviews music and movies on the internet is reduced to just another internet troll jealous of the artist's success. All this time that she was reviewing products she thought she was giving her honest opinion but no, she was actually giving low reviews because she is a bitter girl who realizes that she will never do as much as the artist. She deserves to be abandoned and scored by everyone around her. Her mother, her uncle, her best friend, her whole town but especially the artist. She doesn't deserve their love.
Like I said. BULLSHIT.
This pissed me off big time but as you can see, after thinking about it I decided to just wash my hands off it all and write down the bare reason for my low rating. Take-it as-you-will style.
Goodreads took it as an attack on the authors.
I am now in the position of having to defend a review that doesn't even once mention the authors. I don't know how much more about the book's plot a review could get. I practically spoiled it!
Is there someone I can write? Can I ask Goodreads to reconsider? I don't know.
What I do know is that I shouldn't have to!
Why in the world is Goodreads putting reviewers in the position of having to prove their innocence?